New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

Originally posted by chiefsmom
OK, this is an honest question, coming from me:
If we have the Hubble, satellites ect., why do we not have a way that everyday people can see the surface of the moon from earth? Is the flag still up there? With all of our technology, why is it so hard to answer this debate in this day and age??

I just don't get it.

Ok, there are more than one still suppose to be up there.

edit on 27-11-2012 by chiefsmom because: More info

The Hubble wouldn't be able to resolve the lander sites.
As for satellites we do have some orbiting the moon, another poster posted this link showing the apollo landing sites

After a bit more searching, this article from 2008 says there are more than 500 active satellites in the moons orbit.

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?

No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

reply to post by hellobruce


While I appreciate your response, for someone like me that doesn't know much about this, it really wasn't much of one.

On the flags, I found this:
www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20076710.html

How can we see? Can I go to an observatory and ask to look?
Are there pictures somewhere that are not edited.

Look, I'm not being rude here I do appreciate your time. I really am curious about this and how can anyone make an informed decision either way without asking questions??

Originally posted by chiefsmom
Are there pictures somewhere that are not edited.

Yes, they have been posted here

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
This one really gets me. How do the guru's explain this one?

6. Identical backdrops with different foregrounds and vanishing LEM

Switching between the 2 pictures clearly show the background changing, so the photo's were obviously taken in 2 different positions

edit on 27-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

I'm not buying that at all. I can switch very fast between the two, keeping my eye on one certain feature of one of the mountain tops ( the dark blotch on the mountaintop on the left) The position does not change from left to right, only one pic is taken a little closer than the other. The LEM is so far away in the first most farther pic, that it still should be clearly seen in the second closer pic. The foregrounds are completely different terrain also. It doesn't add up.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The foregrounds are completely different terrain also. It doesn't add up.

So the foreground changes, yet you think the photos were taken in the same spot.... Just stop and actually think about that for a moment....

Also how far away do you think the mountains actually are? Think about perspective.

reply to post by Kr0nZ


Thank you very much for the links. I will be looking at those pics.
But I guess, people will just complain they have been doctored as well.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The foregrounds are completely different terrain also. It doesn't add up.

So the foreground changes, yet you think the photos were taken in the same spot.... Just stop and actually think about that for a moment....

Also how far away do you think the mountains actually are? Think about perspective.

I have. That dark blotch I mentioned does not change in size between the two pictures. We really have no sense of scale to judge perspective so that argument doesn't prove your 2nd point. If we use the size ( and shape/viewing angle) of that blotch as a scale measurement you can see the two pics had to be taken close to the same spot, close enough you should still be able to see the LEM.

Pull them out side by side on Gimp, do the measurements and check this yourself. Someone should post a side by side pic to ATS after lining up (cropping) the mountaintops at the top edge of the picture and again with a similar left margin, make one transparent and superimpose onto the other, then post That. It will give a better indication of whats going on.

This can be done. Find the scale size of the lunar module, then use that known value to calculate distance at which the picture was taken. Line that up with the second picture and see what happens.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
If we use the size ( and shape/viewing angle) of that blotch as a scale measurement you can see the two pics had to be taken close to the same spot, close enough you should still be able to see the LEM.

Why? As the mountains are 30+km away, why do you think a splotch on one would change if you move 10's of metres?

Again, stop and think of perspective for a minute.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
If we use the size ( and shape/viewing angle) of that blotch as a scale measurement you can see the two pics had to be taken close to the same spot, close enough you should still be able to see the LEM.

Why? As the mountains are 30+km away,

How do you KNOW this?

You don't even know the scale and size of those mountains.. they could be small hills that are close.

In any event, if you know the distance from the LEM that pic was taken, you could also use the scale to judge how far in front of the LEM ( behind the LEM from the cameras perspective) you would have to be so the second picture will look like it does.

I get the idea but I'm no good at math.

As to why fake the moon landing

The Russians put the first satellite up
They put the first living thing into space
They put the first man into space ( even BEFORE yuris journey into space as the SUPPOSED first man into space there are stories of many failed attempts where eavesdropping stations working for the US listened into the cosmonauts dying through system failures or simply drifting off into space, literally listening into their breathing becoming slower and more laboured, even listening into the heartbeats slowly fade and stop)

Remember this was the cold war

The US was loosing the space race which had a big effect on the American morale and psyche, the 'if they can do that ....what else can they do ?' .......'damn they are really that more advanced than us' .......'if they can do this imagine what weapon tech they have' .........' Oh my god they could rain down death from space on us' .
So the US had to do something to firstly reassure the public that not only were they equal but ahead of the Russians but also a message to the Russians "nah nah our techs better than your tech"

As to why Russia wouldn't blow the whistle ?
Maybe the Russians had their own dark little secrets that they didn't want getting out ......that they knew the US was aware of, the ' well if we tell the world that the US faked it, the US will tell the world about ________________

These are probably the easiest reason behind each of those questions, there are more, and surely more than I and many could comprehend ..........but as I say, these are the easiest .......and easiest to digest


Edit to add
Me personally, I'm still on the fence over if the landings were faked and haven't really done much looking into it over the last few years ( other more provable topics have my attention at the moment ) but at my last check Russia still maintained they couldn't provide adequate shielding to pass through the radiation belt safely ( hence why NOONE ELSE has sent a manned mission to the moon ) so it also had the second message of ' meh so what if you nuke us.....look we have the tech to withstand radiation ...........you don't
So if we go toe to toe with nukes we'll survive .....you'll be dead or cabbage patch kids

instead of looking for anomalies in nasa pics and whatnot, where is the proof of how the hoax was accomplished ?

death bed confessions ? heck, we even had 1 of those for the JFK assassination
physical location of the studio where it was filmed ?
one name other than kubrick ?
how did they fool kaminsky and the russians ?
how did they fake all the moon rocks they gave away to neutral and rival nations ?


oh I don't know why I bother it's worse than a cult

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by chiefsmom
why do we not have a way that everyday people can see the surface of the moon from earth?

We can.

Is the flag still up there?

Which flag? Apollo 11's flag bllew down. However, they are no longer American flags.
gizmodo.com...

With all of our technology, why is it so hard to answer this debate in this day and age??

It has been answered many many many times, but some people just refuse to accept reality, and prefer their self made fantasy world

I looked at that link of yours and I wonder how they concluded that the flags would be bleached white. I would go more for a gradual degradation of the material, including shrinking and crumpling as any mass may be lost, but that might also allow for parts to retain some colour pigments in folds. I wonder too how the fossil origin of nylon behaves on the Moon as the nylon degrades, those pieces of nylon should have been the first experiments on the Moon.

Originally posted by smurfy
I looked at that link of yours and I wonder how they concluded that the flags would be bleached white.

For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon's environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing-cold -150° C darkness. But even more damaging is the intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the pure unfiltered sunlight on the cloth (modal) from which the Apollo flags were made. Even on Earth, the colors of a cloth flag flown in bright sunlight for many years will eventually fade and need to be replaced. So it is likely that these symbols of American achievement have been rendered blank, bleached white by the UV radiation of unfiltered sunlight on the lunar surface. Some of them may even have begun to physically disintegrate under the intense flux.

reply to post by Kr0nZ


I though the moon had zero gravity,...???

Originally posted by rocha123
reply to post by Kr0nZ

 

I though the moon had zero gravity,...???

Oh dear

Originally posted by rocha123
I though the moon had zero gravity,...???

WTF? Just why would anyone think that?

Umm...I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble here, but if nobody ever has visited the moon, then who put these mirrors there?

Mirrors On Moon

These mirrors exist - and you can personally prove it.

This is a clip from Big Bang Theory (I occasionally watch the show), skip to 1 minute 50 seconds.


Given the correct equipment, you can provide yourself absolute proof that somebody put that mirror there....why not the people who claim they did it?

Originally posted by Wifibrains
Can you circle the cloth canvas?

I've looked but can't see it

Look in the astronauts left armpit, between his body and his arm.

reply to post by rocha123


Why would you ever think that?

If it had zero gravity then the astronauts would have just floated away as soon as they step off the lunar lander... hell the lunar lander wouldn't have even been able to land. ohh yeah thats right its all been faked.
then if it had zero-gravity all satellites we have orbiting it would just fly off into space, and there would be no such thing as ocean tides.

No it doesn't have zero gravity, EVERYTHING with mass has gravity.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Ok, I've got no real interest in this one way or the other, but I did play about a bit with the pics.



This shows them superimposed and you can clearly see that the hill line changes so it is a different angle, but you can see that the hilltop on the left remains in the same place, and also the beginning part of the hill to the right is in the same place.

The second picture is a bit weirder.




I changed around the exposure and contrast and to me it looks like the foreground was pasted onto the original background shot. I can see a pretty damn straight line/join.